Former councillor Courtney Walcott has a point that housing affordability and long‑term financial sustainability must be central to council’s work.
Where we disagree is his idea that the new council’s only responsible choice is repeating a blanket upzoning approach that is not delivering the affordability Calgarians were promised by the previous council.
Evidence from recent housing activity compiled by Messrs. Shawcross and Stante shows that only a small share (5.6 per cent) of new starts resulted from blanket rezoning, while most new supply still comes from area plans and greenfield development.
At the same time, the study showed that land values in many upzoned neighbourhoods have risen sharply, and the typical new inner‑city project is a high‑end rowhouse or fourplex, priced well beyond the reach of middle‑income households. In short, the previous council created a lot of expensive product, but not much in the way of attainable homes.
Mr. Walcott’s recent column crystallizes the problem.
He warns that if city council repeals blanket rezoning and “returns to exclusionary zoning,” it will be “abandoning housing affordability.” That assumes balanced growth and affordability are impossible without blanket upzoning, even though the results show otherwise.
By insisting that council cling to a demonstrably underperforming tool, he closes the door on newer and potentially more effective ideas.
In a recent op-ed piece, Mr. Walcott relied upon a “used car” analogy to defend blanket upzoning: build an expensive new home, and it supposedly frees up a cheaper one down the line.
Council should examine other ways to achieve growth and density
In a financialized housing market, modest homes on upzoned lots are treated mainly as redevelopment sites. They are demolished and replaced with premium units that must command high prices to cover inflated land costs. That does not preserve what little modest housing stock remains; it accelerates its disappearance.
None of this suggests that council should turn its back on growth or density.
It means we should be honest about what has and has not worked, and be willing to try better tools: context‑sensitive intensification through local area plans, removing speculation from at least part of the land base so some homes stay permanently affordable, and targeted encouragement of increased density where infrastructure can support it and it doesn’t destroy the nature of existing communities.
Mr. Walcott chides the new council for honouring campaign promises. In a municipal democracy, it is not a flaw when councillors try to do what they told voters they would do; it is a virtue.
Many were elected on a clear commitment to revisit blanket upzoning and pursue different tools for affordability. If new facts reasonably change their view, they should explain why.
But it would be wrong to insist they ignore both the evidence and their mandate, and simply extend an approach that has not achieved its stated goals on ideological grounds.
Calgarians deserve a serious conversation about which tools actually improve affordability and protect our fiscal health.
That conversation should be about ideas and results, not about loyalty to a single failed approach.
